You Don't Know Me

[terminal7]

A number of Fools found Showtrial very good. The BBC have followed up in the same slot with another semi courtroom trial drama. Unfortunately this series is a real dud with a whole series of unbelievable events. The script is appalling and despite having to resort to subtitles as the sound is atrocious the vernacular is a hard stretch for this old codger.

T7

ps There is a weird continuity situation with one of the actors - will discuss if anyone interested and/or noted

[mc2fool]

But you watched it all the way through nevertheless, eh?

I didn't find it to be "a real dud" nor the script to be appalling, although I did have to skip back and turn on subtitles in a few places, albeit 'cos of unfamiliar street-talk I couldn't easily catch rather than 'cos of sound quality problems.

I didn't find it to be a series of unbelievable events, they all seemed to fit with what I've heard of London gang culture, but it's interesting you did as you may, in one sense, be right in that they may be supposed to be so. The series was a TV adaptation of a book of the same name, written by Imran Mahmood, a barrister, based on a cocktail of the clients he's defended over the years, and:

"...the author pushes the defendant’s credibility to the limit. It used to be a standard courtroom tactic for lawyers to suggest that if a witness was lying about one thing, then they must be lying about everything, Mahmood explains ... The defendant in You Don’t Know Me is clearly telling a story that’s hard to believe, but does that mean he’s guilty of murder? “What I wanted to do was to create the dilemma in a reader,” he says. “If his credibility is stretched to breaking point, is that nonetheless balanced by everything else he’s told you has happened in his life, which may be plausible?"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/04/imran-mahmood-you-don-t-know-me-interview

I was disappointed by the denouement of what really (?) happened, and while I thought, overall, it was ok and worth having watched, once, I won't be giving it a "must watch" recommendation to anyone, and can't imagine, unlike Showtrial (or Thirteen) I'll ever be cranking up iPlayer to rewatch it at some point in the future. 3 out of 5 stars from me.

[terminal7]

Trying to avoid too much of a spoiler (and it happens early on in the series), the idea that an accused is allowed to bring in new information in the summing up is a non-starter - even with the judge allowing the prosecution a post defence summing up. I found this contrived plot mechanism irksome to say the least. Maybe some legal Fools can tell me this happens all the time?

T7

ps mc2fool - did you pick up the continuity malfunction? At least this kept me amused.

[pje16]

I thought it was very good
Samuel Adewunmi was compelling to watch and I found myself torn between was he "the villain" or not
and Roger Jean Nsengiyumva and his crew were convincing as not the sort you want in your neighbourhood

[Arborbridge]

I thought it was very good
Samuel Adewunmi was compelling to watch and I found myself torn between was he "the villain" or not
and Roger Jean Nsengiyumva and his crew were convincing as not the sort you want in your neighbourhood

I'd agree, and I found it really compelling. It did suffer with comparison against Showtrial, which it unfortunately followed too closely in time.

Of course, some of the events were preposterous -but do some people think that because they find the socially driven plot outside their experience? Isn't that the point of the title? - especially the trial part itself, which could never happen in that way. But that is also the point, isn't it? The contention is that our legal system places great emphasis on "the facts" but that is not the same as establishing how those facts arose and how they came to pass. In particular, how in some circumstances, basically very decent people can be driven in the wrong direction: something middle-class well to do society find impossible to appreciate or empathise with. If there was one downside, I will admit a criticism that as times the delivery was slow. However, Samuel's voice was hypnotic and engaging, while Sophie Wild (can you believe her accent ? not a trace of her native Aussie).

Indeed, the writers kept this thread up to and including the ending. The whole play was thoroughly thought provoking and it was refreshing to see such a serial from the point of view of people who have limited choices, who make some mistakes but are also driven by circumstances. And underneath the pot-pourri of events, it was a story about extreme love and devotion.

Quite brilliant and explored some themes which you will also find in classic plays by writers such as J B Priestley. To anyone not sure, I'd recommend you wach and make up your own mind - and the bonus is that the commitment is quite short at only four episodes.

I'd be very surprised if we don't see these two young actors again in the near future.

Arb.

[jackdaww]

.

we liked it - compelling .

some padding and incoherent dialogue but overall very good - and different .

[Arborbridge]

Trying to avoid too much of a spoiler (and it happens early on in the series), the idea that an accused is allowed to bring in new information in the summing up is a non-starter - even with the judge allowing the prosecution a post defence summing up. I found this contrived plot mechanism irksome to say the least. Maybe some legal Fools can tell me this happens all the time?

T7

ps mc2fool - did you pick up the continuity malfunction? At least this kept me amused.

It didn't need to be a legally allowable trial - it could never have happened. But does that matter? It was a theatrical device to allow the sequence of events to unfold.

In the same way, I watched the end of Stieg Larsson's Millenium: that trial could never happen either. Quite absurd, but it made good drama. Plays do not have to be "real" - documentaries fulfill that function.

[monabri]

It's a story...

If a defendent were to be allowed so much time to explain his life story they'd have to supply tea and biscuits to the assembled courtroom or more likely, coffee to keep them awake.

[Maylix]

...
ps There is a weird continuity situation with one of the actors - will discuss if anyone interested and/or noted

Hi T7, you've got me intrigued......I watched all the episodes and I can't remember any obvious ones....maybe the lead actors beard/hairstyle at one point? Do tell!

MayLix

[terminal7]

...
ps There is a weird continuity situation with one of the actors - will discuss if anyone interested and/or noted

Hi T7, you've got me intrigued......I watched all the episodes and I can't remember any obvious ones....maybe the lead actors beard/hairstyle at one point? Do tell!

MayLix

Oh dear me this is frivolous – Mail on Line territory. If you look at the right-side upper cheek of Kyra (Sophie Wilde) you will notice that in some scenes there are 2 pronounced skin spots – depending on the camera angles and sources of lighting. In other scenes – they are gone. That’s it.

T7

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I watched this yesterday.

Didn't float my boat though.

The start was slow.
The middle was too long.
And the ending was less than poor.
All that with no story line that held any of it together.

AiY

[malkymoo]

Watched the first episode a couple of days ago, won't be watching any more, I have better things to do with 3 hours. Very slow and unbelievable plot. The cast were good, but they have to work with the script they are given.

[Arborbridge]

Well, that just goes to show: "It takes all sorts"

It was, in my view, excellent TV which explored a serious subject which deserves serious consideration.
Perhaps, if one was not interested in that subject, or suffering a lack of empathy with persons in that predicament, I can see it might have been boring or irrelevant. Luckily, most of us have never been put in that place.
From my POV, it seemed really thought provoking and very much along the lines of a J B Priestley play - which can also be quite slow to unwind and tease out the points, little by little.

The Girl Before, has also been condemned as "too slow" on here. I wonder, are we all getting to expect instant gratification, born of video games, and do not have the patience to let stories evolve in the way they used to?

Arb.

[pje16]

we all have different views
I go along with arb
as I enjoyed them both
PS The Tourist starts tomorrow on BBC1 @9pm

[Gerry557]

PS The Tourist starts tomorrow on BBC1 @9pm

The problem will the BBC is most stuff is in stereo not surround sound. I find this makes a big difference to some programs. I suppose Atmos will be a long way down the road.

I've been told it might be available on Amazon Prime in 5.1 surround sound.

It's looking like another nail in the tv licence coffin.

[pje16]

I don't need/care about surround sound (my view)
my tv has decent built in speakers
I do have a wireless set of Sennheiser headphones (which are great) if the sound is mumbled or there is noise outside my house
had no trouble listening to The Tourist